The F-82 Twin Mustang Zero Sum Game — USAF wins and CAF loses and loses again and may lose flying their B-29

The F-82 Twin Mustang Zero Sum Game — USAF wins and CAF loses and loses again and may lose flying their B-29

Reader Gene Fioretti alerted this blog to a Confederate Air Force Special Alert published on 20 April 2012 entitled, FiFi Under Attack from Ohio Congressman. It is about Congressman Michael Turner’s bill amendment which, if passed as currently drafted, would ground FiFi — the only flying B-29. The news alert and plea can be found here.

This blog does not like this alert and probably not for the reason you may think. This alert is a plea to aid the Congressman to reconsider this bill where the CAF bases its argument as payback against their fight to regain what is theirs, an F-82 Twin Mustang now in the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.

First, what is a “zero sum” game?

It is a contest where there will be one winner (1 point) and one loser (-1 point) with no ties allowed — when the points are added the result is nil, a zero sum game.

The CAF has the opinion the U.S. Air Force donated the F-82 in question to the CAF which, in turn, expended great effort to restore it to flying condition. Unfortunately, some time after its rejuvenation the pilot in an air show made a forced landing which destroyed the propellers and landing gear among other things. Items that were impossible to replace and, in time, the CAF traded it ,in part, for a flying condition P-38 Lightning. No doubt the CAF was working in the best interest of representing historical flying warbirds but let us stop to look at the details.

The USAF lent the Twin Mustang in 1966 and, not unusually, required its return should the CAF no longer have use for it. That really means to give it back instead of the USAF losing a part of its heritage, a standard practice.

The CAF obtained it, flew it, broke it, then rid itself of it.

The USAF wanted it back and had to sue in District Court in Dayton OH to get it and they prevailed.

This is the USA and you get a second bite at the apple if you have the fiscal resources and the CAF opted to expend some of its money in an appeal.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, the USAF would retain possession.

CAF has a lot of money and announced it would appeal again to a higher court. That is a serious undertaking requiring a lot of resolve and a lot more money. At this point you have to ask, why? Is a point to be made here? Would money going to lawyers be better spent on av gas?

In the emergency alert the CAF infers they have been done wrong, while omitted they have had two bites at the apple, and goes on to say they have tried to settle persuasively instead of litigiously. Well, there are two white lies there — the CAF countered and lost then offered to display the F-82 while accepting the USAF had ownership while insisting they intended to re appeal.

Now, what is the USAF to do? Give possession to the CAF which would weaken their stand in a higher court by appearing to not have a place for this nearly rare F-82?

Hardly, they are not naive.

So, the CAF took on the USAF just as Iraq has and with the same meager showing it would seem. This is hardball. The CAF files for another appeal they say. Well, okay, we will hit you with legislation says the USAF. The CAF responds with not fair though they do keep filing in the court system.

It would appear the proposed legislation is heavy-handed and there are far more important matters to address.

But the CAF has now not only lost the F-82 they may no longer be able to fly the B-29 known as FiFi— they make no mention of the other warbird aircraft and if any of them may also be involved.

The CAF appears to have begun this by drawing a line in the sand with USAF heritage at stake in the F-82 — one side would win and one side would lose — now by further dragging it out there may be unintended consequences, fairly or not, for the CAF — but this is major league play and that should have been a risk consciously accepted.

Read the news alert and respond if you will. The CAF has a point but not for the reasons they state as being wronged by the USAF — like the British in the American Revolutionary War they lost, then lost again. I would offer honey instead of salt if I were the CAF with regard to this situation. Should this legislation go through there will be unintended consequences, as well, since there are always unintended consequences — so I would be reluctant to accept the amendment for that reason, not the emotional argument of the CAF.